Case Study

Proc IMechE Part D:

J Automobile Engineering
1–14
Performance evaluation of Ó IMechE 2017
Reprints and permissions:
regenerative braking systems sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954407017728651
journals.sagepub.com/home/pid

Guido Wager1, Jonathan Whale2 and Thomas Braunl1

Abstract
This research evaluates the energy gain from a regenerative braking system (RBS) in a commercial electric vehicle (EV),
the OEM Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Measurements were conducted in a controlled environment on a commercial chassis dynam-
ometer using international drive cycle standards. The energy recovery of the vehicle was modelled and the output of the
model was compared with results from the chassis dynamometer driving. The experiments were original as they coupled
changes in energy recovered and driving range due to the RBS settings with investigations into the time of use of the fric-
tion brake. Performance tests used two different drive cycle speed profiles and various RBS settings to compare energy
recovery performance for a broad range of driving styles. The results show that due to reduced energy consumption,
the RBS increased the driving range by 11–22% depending on RBS settings and the drive cycle settings on the dynam-
ometer. The results further showed that driving an EV with a RBS uses the friction brakes more efficiently, which will
reduce brake pad wear. This has the potential to improve air quality due to reduced brake pad dust and reduces the
maintenance costs of the vehicle. The findings were significant since they showed that friction time of use, a parameter
neglected in RBS testing, plays an important part in the efficient operation of an EV. The overall results from the vehicle
energy recovery modelling showed good agreement with the data from drive cycle testing and the model has potential
to be further developed to gain greater insight into vehicle RBS braking behaviour for EVs in general.

Keywords
Regenerative braking system, electric vehicle, range, energy recovery, friction brakes, drive cycle

Date received: 13 December 2016; accepted: 26 July 2017

Introduction consumption (defined as net energy consumed from the

The penetration and expansion of electric vehicles (EVs)
in the marketplace has been hindered by issues such as
high purchase costs, limited driving range, lack of charg-
ing infrastructure, lengthy charging times and policy chal-
lenges.1–13 In 1997, Toyota brought out the Prius (model
NHW10), the first factory-built mainstream hybrid elec-
tric vehicle (HEV).5,14 Since that time, car manufacturers,
governments, academia and EV enthusiasts have been
increasingly investing in EV-related technologies.5,15–23
The use of an energy recovery system in vehicles
gained wider popularity when it was introduced as an
energy saving feature in Formula 1 racing, effectively
making Formula 1 cars hybrid vehicles.21,22,24–26 An
electro-mechanical regenerative braking system (RBS)
converts kinetic energy into electricity by using its driv-
ing motor in reverse and operating it as a generator
during deceleration. An RBS is now a common feature
used in all factory-built EVs to improve driving safety,
range and vehicle energy efficiency.20,27–29 Most present
drive cycle standards for EVs measure vehicle energy
battery per km travelled in Wh km21) enabling calcula-
tion of the performance improvements of the EV due to
an RBS (defined as the energy in W h recovered and
delivered to the battery per km). Despite the advantages
listed above, RBS disadvantages include the potential
of driving load mismatch and dependency on battery
state of charge (SOC).18,30,31
EVs with integrated RBS-ABS units transmit data
between the anti-lock braking system (ABS) and the
RBS control units to utilise the maximum possible
energy transfer through the wheels without locking.
1
School of Electrical Electronic and Computer Engineering, The
University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Energy & Physics, Murdoch
University, Murdoch, WA, Australia
Corresponding author:
Guido Wager, School of Electrical Electronic and Computer Engineering,
The University of Western Australia, (M018), 35 Stirling Highway,
Crawley WA 6009, Australia.
Email: guido.wager@uwa.edu.au
2 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)
This integration has introduced a higher level of com-
plexity in RBS and brake system design optimisation in
HEVs. Complexities with safety considerations include
a fully applied RBS causing the wheels to slip or lock
and create dangerous driving situations. Several techni-
cal considerations (if inappropriately integrated and
configured) can lead to trade-offs between vehicle safety
and stability, high RBS conversion rates and appropri-
ate battery overcurrent protection.
Combining RBS control with friction brakes (blended
brake control) in EVs can induce further challenges.
Damping factors, power-train backlashes and the elastic
properties of an electric drive train might excite driveline
oscillations, challenging designers of blended brake con-
trol strategies. To overcome these issues and maintain
appropriate vehicle dynamics, Lv et al. conducted inten-
sive research in developing control algorithms to com-
pensate for the power train flexibility.32,33
In addition to the technical aspects of an RBS, such
as vehicle dynamics, safety and efficiency, the ergo-
nomic design of the accelerator and brake pedal is also
an important factor. Zhang et al. have carried out
research on the optimisation of blended RBS and
hydraulic brake systems taking all these factors into
account in the design of an RBS control strategy.34 The
research not only focused on the maximum RBS regen-
eration efficiency, vehicle dynamics and safety, but also
incorporated optimal brake pedal comfort. It was
found that a control strategy recovering the most
energy would cause issues in terms of road safety and
pedal comfort. The research revealed that by changing
the control strategy and sacrificing some potentially
available kinetic energy, the vehicle dynamics and pedal
comfort improved.34 Complexity for an RBS control
strategy, however, increases by optimising the RBS per-
formance in conjunction with an ABS. Peng et al. ana-
lysed limiting factors associated with slipping or
locking wheels during braking of a vehicle,35 and devel-
oped a system to more effectively control hydraulic
friction brake pressures and the interaction with the
RBS to improve efficiency of regeneration, even during
emergency stopping. Other challenges for improving
RBS performance include the EV electrical system
design, as electric motors, controllers, batteries, and
cable sizes must be optimised to enable effective energy
transfer from the wheels to the electrical system. EV
electrical systems with load mismatch increase stress on
under-designed components, create excessive heat, and
cause losses in performance. As the optimised control
and fine-tuning of an RBS systems is a complex
task,34,36 most factory EVs reduce the driver’s choice of
RBS settings to a small number of pre-set options.
The EV battery and its SOC also limit the RBS
energy conversion efficiency, as many battery technolo-
gies are sensitive to high amperages and overcharging,37
and a fully charged battery is unable to store additional
"   
iX
=N
1 Vi + Vi1 2
PTractive = mgCRR + rCD AF + mr
i=1
2 2
electrical energy.38,39 The driving pattern or drive cycle
can also affect the utility of an RBS, as e.g. continuous
driving without braking renders even an efficient RBS
ineffective at improving system efficiency, performance
and range.20,31,38–40 In another example, the design and
performance of an electro-mechanical RBS integrated
with an ABS on an electric bus, was investigated by
Zhang et al.41 The testing was conducted according to
the Chinese Urban Bus Drive Cycle and the efficiency of
regeneration from real road braking was considerable 2
up to 66% depending on the RBS design.
The objective of this research is to quantify the
energy recovery gain from an RBS under different vehi-
cle settings, as well as different drive cycles and loads.
Where other studies have investigated just the vehicle’s
drivable range,28,42 energy consumption and regener-
ated energy from tests using standardised driving
cycles,38,40,43,44 in our study we have also quantified the
time of use of the friction brakes. This parameter, often
neglected, is important to investigate the efficient and
cost effective operation of a vehicle.
A case study is undertaken using a Mitsubishi i-
MiEV EV under different pre-set RBS options. The
Mitsubishi is tested in a controlled environment on a
chassis dynamometer, using both US and European
drive cycle standards under different vehicle configura-
tions and driving patterns. To better understand the
RBS braking behaviour, the power flows in the drive
train of the i-MiEV were mathematically modelled and
the expected energy demand on the battery and energy
recovery rates by the RBS were calculated.
Theory
Vehicle mathematical modelling
To simulate the expected energy recovery rates from the
vehicle RBS and to analyse the braking behaviours, the
various components of traction power demand on the
cars’ batteries were modelled mathematically,45,46 and the
energy consumption and energy recovery of the car was
calculated to estimate the improvement in performance
due to the RBS. In contrast to the very detailed modelling
methodology from Lv et al.,32,33,47 and Zhang et al.,48 the
output of our simplified model was compared with results
from real-road driving on a specific vehicle, the i-MiEV,
and the unknown parameters such as power train effi-
ciency, motor and controller efficiencies, tyre rolling resis-
tance and battery internal resistance were calibrated in the
model accordingly. The energy consumption for required
auxiliary vehicle electrical loads (base load) such as vehicle
computers, displays and pumps, were measured and
logged on a stationary vehicle and integrated into the
model. The model thus used realistic values for input
parameters to try and achieve an accurate estimation of
the energy demands and recovery rates.
The traction power demand was calculated using:45
 #  
Vi  Vi1 Vi + Vi1
+ mgðsin uÞ  ð1Þ
tinc 2
Wager et al.
Equation (1) contains four separate terms. The first
term is the power required to keep the vehicle driving
at a given speed i.e. the power required to overcome
rolling resistance. This is given by the gravitational
force (g = 9.81 m s22), the vehicle’s mass and the roll-
ing resistance coefficient of the tires (CRR). It depends
on the specific vehicle used as well as its tyres and tyre
pressure. The second term defines the power required
to overcome air resistance. This depends on the vehi-
cle’s aerodynamic shape (CD), frontal area (AF) and the
density of air (r = 1.2 kg m23). Unlike the first term,
which is constant, this term depends on the vehicle’s
speed (V) as friction between air and the vehicle’s sur-
face increases with increasing speed. The third and
fourth term relate to the inertial resistance and account
for the loss of power during acceleration (third term)
and road gradient (fourth term). In addition, power
loss due to rotary power is considered by increasing the
third term by a compensation factor described as the
rotational inertia compensation factor (r). Finally, the
drive train losses resulting from battery discharge
losses, cabling, motor and gears, and RBS efficiency
were calibrated from real road experiments. Ptractive
was then multiplied by the drive train efficiency factor
and the auxiliary vehicle electrical loads added:
Ptractive = ðhdtrain 3Ptractive Þ + Paux ð2Þ
Materials and methods
Vehicle configuration and testing
Table 1 provides an overview of the EV parameters
used for the experiments in this study. The Mitsubishi
i-MiEV in Figure 1 is a fully electric car. The i-MiEV
was designed with three driver selectable drive modes
calibrated for vehicle drivability and battery efficiency
reasons. The drive mode selector, a conventional,
automatic-style selector lever with Park, Reverse,
Neutral, Drive, C and Brake positions is an input para-
meter for the motor control unit (MCU) generating the
AC voltage for forward or reverse driving. Through
the mode selector the driver has the choice to drive
between three different brake modes (characteristics),
which each come with different pre-set levels of maxi-
mum braking torque, generated by the RBS.
The different levels of RBS torque include:
 Mode D (drive) – the standard mode, selects a cali-
bration in the MCU to generate a medium RBS
torque.
 Mode C (comfort) – for smooth driving characteris-
tics, request the MCU to reduce the maximum RBS
torque. It is suggested by the manufacturer to use
this mode for longer suburban drives.
 Mode B (Brake) – instructs the MCU for strongest
calibration of regenerative braking capability to
maximise energy recovery. According the vehicle
3
manual it is recommended to use this drive mode
for downhill driving.
For later i-MiEV models, these RBS settings also
influence the accelerator and brake pedal characteris-
tics and the vehicle’s energy consumption.54
EV testing was conducted on a computer-controlled
and calibrated test equipment and instrumentation sys-
tem containing a chassis dynamometer with road load
simulation capability at the Orbital facilities in
Balcatta, Western Australia. A chassis dynamometer is
a device capable of measuring forces on a vehicle’s
wheels or engine with computer controlled data collec-
tion systems for characterising the performance of a
range of vehicles, usually with the aid of pre-
programmed drive cycles. Drive cycle testing was devel-
oped in the late 1960s for uniform emission testing on
passenger cars with combustion engines.55,56 In this
study, vehicle testing required the test driver to follow
the profile assisted by computerised driving aids indi-
cating the rate of acceleration and deceleration of the
vehicle. The existing chassis dynamometer instrumenta-
tion logged the following parameters during the drive
cycle analyses: ambient temperature; vehicle speed; and
dynamometer force. In addition to the existing dynam-
ometer instrumentation systems, a custom-made data
acquisition system was designed, built, programmed
and calibrated by the author to log the following data:
date and time; vehicle main battery voltage (V); main
battery charge current (A); main battery discharge cur-
rent (A); motor controller temperature (°C); brake light
status information (on/off); and brake pedal foot pres-
sure (kg). Vehicle electrical energy consumption and
production by the RBS was calculated from the logged
data. The main parameters include battery voltage (V),
current (A) and motor speed (r/min). The core of the
data acquisition system (DAQ) was a National
Instruments (NI) USB-6008 unit, capable of logging up
to eight analogue input channels.57 Figure 2 shows the
hardware and user interface for the custom built instru-
mentation. The National Instrument USB-6008
requires a PC with a user interface; an open source
application programmed in LabVIEWÓ.58 The graphi-
cal interface software was designed for the particular
task of acquiring signals from the individual channels
for measuring, calculating, displaying and logging vehi-
cle data, and enabled modification such as inputting
new sensor calibration factors. To ensure uniform test-
ing according the ISO standards, two of the USB DAQ
channel inputs were connected to commercial tempera-
ture sensors, which measured the ambient and vehicle
controller temperature, respectively. To investigate the
impact on the RBS from the brake pedal operation, an
additional channel was used as an input from an indus-
try standard brake pedal pressure sensor that converted
the applied pedal force to a voltage. To acquire brake
light information from the vehicle and to avoid intru-
sive vehicle modification, a photo resistor was placed in
front of the brake light and the signal output of the
4 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)

Table 1. i-MiEV specifications.49

Dimensions and weights Overall length, width, and height 3475 mm (L), 1475 mm (W), 1610 mm (H)

Cross-frontal area, AF 2.37 m2

Empty vehicle weight 1110 kg

Empty vehicle weight measured prior to testing Front: 521 kg
Rear: 604
Total: 1125 kg
Power train Rear mounted motor
Rear wheel drive
Reduction gear, final gear ratio of 6.066
Tyre rolling resistance coefficient, CRR = 0.3550
Brake system Front Hydraulic operated disk brakes
Rear Hydraulic operated drum brakes
Front / rear ABS, electronic brake force distribution (EBD)
and active stability control (ASC)
RBS Category A*51
Motor Type AC, permanent magnet synchronous
Maximum power 49 kW @ 2500–8000 r/min
Continuous power N/A
Maximum torque 180 N m @ 0–2000 r/min
Battery Type Lithium-ion, Yuasa LIM 50E52,53
Nominal voltage 330 V
Energy 16 kWh
Max. discharge current 300 A (6 C)
Max. charge current 125 A (2.5 C)
continuous discharge current N/A53

*According to International Standards, the RBS on the i-MiEV is classified as Category A (not interacting with the service brake). However, since the
vehicle is equipped with an ABS, EBD and ASC, these systems can interact with the service brake and RBS under certain conditions, so the i-MiEV
RBS might be considered as a combination of Category A and B.51

P = IV ð3Þ
and the energy consumption and energy recovered by
the RBS were calculated using
iX
=n
Econs = IV tinc ð4Þ
i=1

The current was measured using a calibrated induc-

Figure 1. Mitsubishi i-MiEV on the chassis dynamometer.
sensor was connected to a channel of the USB DAQ. A
further two channels were used to acquire calibrated
vehicle speed and torque voltage from the chassis
dynamometer
To measure the vehicle’s power, a similar method
was used to that in the RBS efficiency study conducted
by Lv et al.47 To prevent intrusive vehicle modification
for a torque sensor on the vehicle’s drive shaft, the
power (current 3 voltage) was measured as close as
possible to the energy source, the battery. A further
advantage of this method was that it accounted for
most of the energy losses through the power train. The
power was then calculated using
tive current clamp ICA 32N with an accuracy of 2%.
For the measurement of the relative high battery vol-
tage of up to 400 V DC, a calibrated voltage divider,
based on two resistors, reduced the voltage to an accep-
table level for the USB-6008 interface unit. The calibra-
tion of the instrumentation and chassis dynamometer
system was conducted under the AS/NZS ISO
9001:2000 standard. After starting the application, raw
sensor voltages and calculated physical quantity para-
meters where automatically stored to a spreadsheet file,
as well as streamed and displayed on a PC screen.
The data was sampled at 500 Hz, averaged and
stored on a text file every second (tinc = 1 s), and aggre-
gated in a spreadsheet. The original experimental setup
included a shielded current clamp connected to ground
together with the NI battery voltage logger. During the
test, the Mitsubishi i-MiEV’s internal computerised cir-
cuit monitoring system detected a battery earth leak to
ground and triggered a fault. This switched the car into
‘limp mode’, leading to a maximum controlled speed of
25 km h21 and a cessation of the test. Therefore, as it
was not possible to record voltage and current
Wager et al.
Figure 2. The custom-built instrumentation hardware and user
interface used for testing at Orbital Engines’ test facilities.
simultaneously, an approximation of the EV energy
consumption (Wh km21) was achieved by logging the
battery voltage each second on a separate drive cycle,
and averaged over the duration of the city and highway
cycles. Lithium-ion batteries have a relatively flat dis-
charge curve. Discharging a traction battery over the
short driving cycles, under low battery loads (except the
short 120 km h21 section of the drive cycle), showed
that the battery voltage did not change significantly
and hence, for this experiment, was assumed to be not
sensitive to drive cycle repetitions in terms of calculat-
ing the energy consumption.
As the current values were also logged every second
they were amenable to be multiplied by the averaged bat-
tery voltage, and the negative and positive currents indi-
vidually integrated over the time of the whole drive cycle
to calculate the EV energy consumption (Wh km21).
Regenerative braking control strategy
Figure 3 shows the drive train system overview of the i-
MiEV. The DC current flow from the traction battery
to the motor is controlled by the motor controller
(MCU) converting the battery DC electricity in AC. At
the motor, the electrical energy is converted into rota-
tional energy and flows through the reduction gearbox
to the wheels. One main advantage of a modern con-
troller is its capability to operate the motor as generator
(RBS). By slowing down a vehicle, the kinetic energy is
dissipated in heat by the friction of the drive train, while
the braking torque from the RBS is generating electric-
ity. The generated AC electricity is converted by the
motor controller back into DC and fed to the energy
storage device, the battery. To maintain drivability and
to protect the system, the currents (RBS and traction
current) need to be controlled (Figure 4(a)).
The MiEV is manufactured with a hydraulic brake
system with regenerative braking. Figure 4(a) shows a
diagram that illustrates how the RBS is activated and
controlled by the acceleration pedal. From point X2
5
towards full acceleration, the RBS is disabled. Provided
the vehicle speed is above the RBS threshold speed of
16 km h21 (see Figure 5) and the releasing acceleration
pedal reaches point X1, the RBS starts to generate
brake torque (Y0) and decelerate the vehicle. The fur-
ther the accelerator pedal travels to the point of com-
plete release, X0, the higher the RBS brake force. By
fully releasing the pedal, X0, the RBS maximum torque
(Y1) is limited by the vehicle’s speed and RBS setting,
as discussed previously. The RBS operation is further
limited by the driving and road conditions. When
entering a critical driving situation or when the wheels
tend to lock on a low friction surface such as ice or oil,
the ABS/ASC computer requests the RBS controller to
reduce RBS torque. Depending on the stability of the
vehicle, the hydraulic modulator might also interact to
guarantee a safe driving condition. If the applied brake
torque from the RBS is insufficient to slow down as
required, or the vehicle speed is below 16 km h21
(Figure 5), the driver has to change over from the accel-
eration pedal to the brake pedal and apply additional
brake force to the hydraulic friction brake system.
When the brake pedal is pressed and the vehicle speed
is above 16 km h21, the RBS already generates full
braking torque and by pressing the pedal further, only
the friction brake force increases (Figure 4(b)).
Vehicle testing procedure: choice of drive cycle
standards
In this case study, the test method for the energy con-
sumption was conducted in accordance to the United
Nations R101 New European Driving Cycle (NEDC)
standard,59 and the United States federal city driving
pattern for vehicle testing (known as the FTP 75, or
Federal Test Procedure) developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.60 The tests were
also conducted according to the Australian Design
Rule (ADR 81/02), the NEDC urban and Extra-Urban
cycle (Figure 6).61 For comparison, the US FTP 75
exhibits a more ‘aggressive’ urban/city drive cycle than
the ECE-15 urban drive cycles of the NEDC. The
dynamic variation in the FTP 75 urban cycle is likely
to represent a more ‘real world’ driving scenario than
the ECE urban cycle with relatively consistent and
slower driving conditions.12 The NEDC standard
requires the vehicles and the battery to be conditioned
prior to testing to provide uniform testing conditions
for all types of vehicles and batteries. The key require-
ment includes the vehicle to have previously been dri-
ven for a minimum of 300 km and the vehicle’s main
battery to have been in operation for at least seven
days. Furthermore, the main battery was required to be
discharged and fully charged prior to a performance
test. The EV tests were required to be temperature con-
trolled between 20°C and 30°C, with the vehicles tyres
inflated to the pressure specified by the vehicle manu-
facturer. During the tests, all auxiliary devices such as
6 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the drive train of the MiEV.

Figure 4. Diagram to illustrate RBS brake force in respect to acceleration pedal travel: (a) and brake force in respect to brake
pedal travel; (b) assuming a vehicle speed larger than 16 km h21.

Figure 5. NEDC city driving cycle indicating the end of regenerating electrical power at the point when the RBS is disabled below
its threshold of 16 km h21 and the friction brake becomes active (brake light).
Wager et al.
Figure 6. The NEW European Drive Cycle (NEDC) as a drive cycle example.
Table 2. The experiments conducted on the Mitsubishi i-MiEV.
Vehicle Drive cycle RBS settings Initial battery SOC
Mitsubishi i-MiEV NEDC D Mode As per standard
NEDC C Mode As per standard
NEDC B Mode As per standard
FTP75 D Mode As per standard
FTP 75 B Mode As per standard
FTP 75 C Mode As per standard
the heater and air-conditioner were switched off. The
test drive required two consecutive NEDC drive cycles
with a maximum deviation of 6 2 km h21 in the speed
profile. Table 2 shows the EV experiments.
Results
This case study investigated the EV energy consump-
tion and improvement due to the RBS while driving
under various drive cycles using the three i-MiEV RBS
settings. To understand the MiEV’s RBS braking beha-
viour, the vehicle’s energy demands and energy recov-
ery rates were modelled.
Output of the vehicle mathematical modelling
The analysis of the model and of the braking behaviour
was limited to the NEDC driving cycle and the maxi-
mum available torque in B-Mode. Figure 7 shows the
model output for an NEDC driving test. The output
was very sensitive to individual model parameters. For
example, a slight change in the assumed drive train effi-
ciencies can change the output significantly. Table 3
shows the calculated theoretical energy recovered dur-
ing the deceleration sections. The results in the second
column are calculated for deceleration to full stopping
position of the vehicle. Note that these are theoretical
recovery rates from the model and they ignore any RBS
7
threshold. To realistically compare the model to the
MiEV data from the chassis dynamometer, the table
also shows data (third column) for decelerating from
the given driving speeds only down to the MiEV RBS
threshold of 16 km h21.
Performance testing under NEDC drive cycle
The NEDC drive cycle investigation of the RBS perfor-
mance is shown in Figure 8. The figure shows the
recorded speed and current profiles of driving in RBS
modes C, D and B. During acceleration the current
increases and during the vehicle’s deceleration the RBS
recovers energy and recharges the battery (indicated by
the negative current on the scale). RBS mode C gener-
ated lower currents during deceleration, while mode B
generated the highest currents for the battery and the
medium RBS mode (D) generated current levels
between modes C and B. These RBS regeneration mea-
sured results were found to be consistent with the EV
user manual. Table 4 shows the energy consumption
calculated (without charge losses) and the energy con-
sumption improvements due to the RBS. Mitsubishi
states the i-MiEV energy consumption is 135 Wh
km21,62 and for comparison, the experimental test
results on a i-MiEV conducted in 2009 by Walsh at the
University of Sheffield determined a consumption of
140 Wh km21 driving two consecutive NEDC cycles
under the R101 standard.27 The energy consumption of
the i-MiEV measured in this research for the NEDC
drive cycle was 120 Wh km21 (excluding charge losses).
Allowing for a charge efficiency of 0.86, this agrees well
with the energy consumption stated by Mitsubishi and
Walsh.27,62 REV/UWA has also completed on-road
testing of the i-MiEV in a UDC/EUDC cycle akin to
the NEDC, which resulted in a 110 km range for a full
charge, which equates to an average energy consump-
tion of 145 Wh km21.63 This analysis found the i-
MiEV RBS in C mode recovered the least amount of
8 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)

Figure 7. The city (a) and highway (b) drive cycle model output with speed profile, estimated energy demand and RBS energy
recovery profile.

energy (16 Wh km21), B mode recovered the most
energy (21 Wh km21), and D mode recovered an inter-
mediate amount (19 Wh km21). However, due to the
higher energy consumption during D and B modes, the
EV energy consumption showed no significant
improvement compared to mode C. As discussed in the
introduction, drive mode selections will influence the
vehicle’s energy consumption. For the later models
with ECO mode, the manufacturer provides clear infor-
mation of the reduced torque and impact on energy
consumption of the RBS, depending on the selected
drive modes. For earlier models with a C-mode RBS,
there was no information available if and how the C-
mode setting influences the pedal and motor torque
Wager et al. 9

Figure 8. i-MiEV speed and current profile during three NEDC drive cycles for modes C, B and D.

driving with a different speed (load) profile, FTP75, the

Table 3. The calculated theoretical energy recovered for the
different deceleration speeds over the NEDC driving cycle to
energy consumption in C-mode was actually higher
16 km h21 and 0 km h21. than in D-Mode.
On the last NEDC drive cycle, the vehicle is required
Energy recovery Recovered Recovered to accelerate to 120 km h21 and then slowly come to a
speeds [km h21] energy [kWh] for energy [kWh] for full stop. This enables the calculation of the theoretical
deceleration deceleration kinetic energy available to the RBS:
to 0 km h21 to 16 km h21
1 2
15–0 10 0 Ek = mv ð5Þ
2
32–0 43 34
50–35 42 42 By integrating the interval between the last point of
35–0 54 45 maintaining a 120 km h21 speed and the point at which
70–50 58 58 the vehicle comes to a complete stop, the theoretical
120–0 359 352
Total 564 530 kinetic energy available to the i-MiEV RBS is 625 3
103J (0.174 kWh). The measured electricity generated
by the i-MiEV RBS over the interval was 378 3 103 J
(0.105 kWh), achieving a RBS regenerating efficiency
Table 4. NEDC RBS performance and energy consumption for of 60.5% for this selected section of the drive cycle by:
mode C, D and B.
Eregen
hregen = x100% ð6Þ
NEDC NEDC NEDC Ek
i-MiEV i-MiEV i-MiEV
C Mode D Mode B Mode This approximation of the RBS efficiency is only
true assuming the friction brake pedal was not pressed
Wh km21 without RBS 136 138 142 during the deceleration from 120 km h21 to a full stop
Wh km21 with RBS 120 119 121 and the RBS would have generated electricity close to 0
Improvement (Wh km21) 16 19 21
Improvement (%) 12 14 15 km h21. Analysing the data from the last NEDC drive
cycle shown, the brake pedal was pressed at a speed
from 16 km h21 to 0 km h21 (Figure 9) influencing the
efficiency of the RBS. At the same time and speed, the
characteristics and hence the energy consumption. RBS threshold disabled generating brake torque, so
However, one reason for improved energy consump- from that point on electricity was used rather than gen-
tion in C-Mode may be the different MCU pedal and erated. Therefore, the efficiency was recalculated based
torque calibration, which might better load-match the on a kinetic energy and the energy recovery from a
NEDC driving. This assumption is supported by the speed from 120 km h21 to 16 km h21. Correcting the
energy consumption result below (see Table 6). By efficiency by considering the RBS threshold and not
10 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)

Figure 9. The NEDC Highway section speed profile, traction, regeneration power and the short period of the friction brake (brake
light) in use below 16 km h21 near the end of the highway section.

Table 5. Comparison between RBS regeneration from model cycles were caused by deviation of 6 2 km h21 in the
and from chassis dynamometer driving. speed profile drive cycle speed (change in available
kinetic energy), tolerances of the RBS threshold, the rel-
Recovery speeds Recovered energy Recovered energy atively short deceleration measurement time, and the
(model) [kWh] chassis dyno [kWh]
relatively long logging intervals (1 s).
15–0 10 (0) 0
32–0 (16) km h21 43 (34) 26
50–35 km h21 42 (42) 40 Performance testing under FTP 75
35–0 (16) km h21 54 (45) 31
70–50 km h21 58 (58) 68 The FTP 75 drive cycles, under identical conditions to
120–0 (16) km h21 359 (352) 379 the NEDC drive cycles, generated similar results to the
Total 564 (530) 544 NEDC drive cycles for each RBS mode. However, the
overall energy consumption was less per km for the
FTP 75 drive cycles, and the more frequent braking
profile resulted in a greater utility of the RBS, and asso-
using the friction brake improved the RBS efficiency to ciated EV performance improvement (Figure 10 and
61.7%. Table 6). Table 6 shows that the best performance (Wh
km21) for the i-MiEV FTP 75 test occurred in D mode.
Comparison between NEDC chassis driving and model For all i-MiEV drive cycle tests the brake pedal pres-
output. To better understand the MiEV RBS brake sure was found to make no difference on the RBS per-
behaviour the energy recovery of the vehicle was mod- formance. This was because the level of applied RBS
elled and its output compared to the results from chas- braking force is controlled by the acceleration pedal
sis dynamometer driving. and is independent of the brake pedal. The brake pedal
Table 5 shows the calculated energy consumptions to pressure and the operation of the brake light were
a full stop, to the RBS threshold of 16 km h21 (brack- logged over the drive cycles. Table 7 shows the friction
ets) and the measured recovered energy. The data indi- brake operation time (in seconds) for each drive cycle.
cate the importance of considering the RBS threshold. Between modes C and B, there was a significant differ-
Although, at 16 km h21 there is still kinetic energy ence in the duration where the friction brake was in use.
available, the RBS is disabled and hence does not feed
electricity back to the battery. Comparing calculated
and measured data considering the RBS threshold Discussion
shows better agreement with the measured data from
chassis dynamometer driving. Although some individual Mitsubishi i-MiEV RBS performance
drive cycle recovery rates deviate from the model signifi- The theoretical kinetic energy available from the
cantly, the overall recovered energy lies within 2.5%. It Mitsubishi i-MiEV travelling at a speed of 120 km h21
is assumed that the deviation on some of the individual was 625 3 103 J, with the RBS being able to generate
Wager et al. 11

Figure 10. i-MiEV speed and current profile during three FTP 75 drive cycles for modes C, B and D.

Table 6. FTP 75 RBS performance and energy consumption for best performance for a driving pattern. For example,
mode C, D and B. the FTP75 drive cycle on the higher RBS setting did
not recover the most energy per km. Although the
FTP 75 FTP 75 FTP 75 higher RBS electricity generation in mode D relative to
i-MiEV i-MiEV i-MiEV
C Mode D Mode B Mode mode B was not significant, the authors assume that
the FTP75 load profile matched the i-MiEV’s mode D
Wh km21 without RBS 81 79 93 to a higher degree than B, resulting in slightly more
Wh km21 with RBS 70 62 77 energy recovery.
Improvement (Wh km21-) 11 17 16
Improvement (%) 13 22 18
The calculated results from the simplified vehicle
model showed good overall agreement with the energy
recovery rates measured on the chassis dynamometer
driving. To improve the results on the individual drive
cycles shorter logging intervals and very accurate speed
Table 7. i-MiEV friction brake operation time (s) for each drive
cycle and mode. profile driving should be used.
In addition to energy consumption improvements by
Cycle and mode Operation time of friction brake (s) an RBS, there are several other benefits to using an
RBS. An RBS extends the vehicle’s range, therefore
NEDC C Mode 109 reducing driver ‘range anxiety’, while also reducing
NEDC D Mode 77
NEDC B Mode 46 wear on the vehicle’s brake components.
FTP 75 C Mode 157 When driving the i-MiEV on the FTP75 in mode B
FTP 75 D Mode 122 compared to the mode C, the operation of the friction
FTP 75 B Mode 85 brake reduced to almost half (from 157 s to 85 s). This
not only reduces vehicle operation cost but also reduces
noise and particulate emissions, which have a negative
392 3 103 J of electricity over the selected drive cycle impact on air quality and consequently population
interval. This corresponds to a maximum of around health.64–66
62% of the available kinetic energy converted over the Many factors such as vehicle brand and model as
small interval. However, driving the i-MiEV under dif- well as driving style influence the servicing cost of vehi-
ferent drive cycles and RBS settings over longer inter- cle braking systems. A brake component service life
vals demonstrated a wide range of RBS efficiency depends on several factors and is difficult to model and
values. The RBS improved the energy consumption of predict.67–69 An accurate and detailed cost analysis is
the i-MiEV between a high of 22% on the FTP 75 drive beyond the scope of the current investigation. However,
cycle in mode D, and a lower 11% on the NEDC drive a simple back of the envelope calculation for cost sav-
cycle in mode C. Such a large range shows how signifi- ings from an RBS is performed based on the following
cant the RBS performance depends on the driving pat- assumptions:
terns and the RBS configuration. It is also important
that the RBS settings are set to match the vehicle load, (1) The RBS is installed in a frequently driven EV
as a fully applied RBS does not necessary provide the such as a courier service car.
12
(2) The EV drives 40,000 km per year.
(3) An assumed annual servicing cost for brake com-
ponents is $AUD 500.70
The assumed annual brake servicing cost might vary
significantly between car manufacturers and dealerships
and local maintenance service stations.
A reduction of the operation time of the friction brake
by around 50%, as discussed above, means that the life-
time of the friction brake is almost doubled. Hence, for
the above assumptions, an annual saving of $AUD 250
can be assumed. These cost savings would accumulate
over the years and could contribute to e.g. a new EV
traction battery. Such hidden cost benefits in the use of
EVs (and there are many other cost savings related to oil,
filters, timing belts, air, fuel and oil filters, spark plugs,
coolant etc., that are not discussed further in this study)
allow EVs to better compete with conventional combus-
tion engine cars in terms of operating and life cycle costs.
Conclusion
Our results demonstrated the introduction of RBS reduced
energy consumption, and thereby increased the driving
range between 11% and 22% (OEM Mitsubishi i-MiEV),
depending on the drive cycle settings on the chassis dynam-
ometer and RBS parameter. This represented a significant
improvement in performance and energy consumption.
The vehicle energy recovery model showed good agreement
with the results from chassis dynamometer driving. Though
additional analysis of the model is required under different
drive cycles and RBS settings, this is a promising model
that can be further developed to gain greater insight into
vehicle RBS braking behaviour for EVs in general.
Actual driving or ‘real world’ testing results may differ
from the chassis dynamometer testing. For the RBS to
operate at its maximum efficiency, it must be fine-tuned
to match EV load and driving style, as well as interfaced
with an ABS. The results further showed that driving an
EV with a RBS increases the efficient use of friction
brakes, reduces the negative impact on air quality, while
also reducing the maintenance costs significantly.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. Previous logging experiments showed that sampling at
frequencies higher than 500 Hz caused inaccuracy in the
data acquisition of the NI USB-6008 device, however,
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)
sampling at lower frequencies reduced the quality of the
logged signals.
References
1. The Renewable Energy Vehicle (REV) Project. Fast-
charging network trial, http://therevproject.com/trials/
charging-trial.php (2012, accessed 19 November 2012).
2. Gass V, Schmidt J and Schmid E. Analysis of alternative
policy instruments to promote electric vehicles in Austria.
In: World renewable energy congress 2011, Linköping,
Sweden, 8–13 May 2011, pp.3525–3532. Linköping Uni-
versity Electronic Press.
3. Usher J, Horgan C, Dunstan C, et al. Plugging in: a tech-
nical and institutional assessment of electric vehicles and the
grid in Australia. Report for Australian Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO),
2011. Sydney: Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS.
4. Morrow K, Karner D and Francfort J. US Department of
Energy vehicle technologies program. Advanced vehicle testing
activity – plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging infrastructure
review. Report no. INL/EXT-08-15058, November 2008,
Idaho Falls, ID: Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
5. Dunstan C, Usher J, Ross K, et al. Supporting electric
vehicle adoption in Australia: barriers and policy solutions.
An Electric Driveway Project Report for Australian
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Orga-
nisation (CSIRO), 2011. Sydney: Institute for Sustainable
Futures, UTS.
6. Mullan J, Harries D, Bräunl T, et al. Modelling the impacts
of electric vehicle recharging on the Western Australian elec-
tricity supply system. Energy Policy 2011; 39: 4349–4359.
7. Mullan J, Harries D, Bräunl T, et al. The technical, eco-
nomic and commercial viability of the vehicle-to-grid
concept. Energy Policy 2012; 48: 394–406.
8. McHenry MP, Schultz M and O’Mara K. Wholesale
electricity markets and electricity networks: balancing
supply reliability, technical governance, and market trad-
ing in the context of Western Australian energy disaggre-
gation and marketization. In: McAdams AR (ed)
Advances in energy research. Vol. 5. Hauppauge, NY:
Nova Science Publishers, 2011.
9. McHenry MP. Technical and governance considerations
for advanced metering infrastructure/smart meters: tech-
nology, security, uncertainty, costs, benefits, and risks.
Energy Policy 2013; 59: 834–842.
10. Bräunl T. Synthetic engine noise generation for improv-
ing electric vehicle safety. Int J Veh Safety 2012; 6: 1–8.
11. Lim CS, Mamat R and Bräunl T. Impact of ambulance
dispatch policies on performance of emergency medical
services. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 2011; 12: 624–632.
12. Wäger G, McHenry MP, Whale J, et al. Testing energy
efficiency and driving range of electric vehicles in relation
to gear selection. Renew Energy 2014; 62: 303–312.
13. Foley A, Tyther B, Calnan P, et al. Impacts of electric
vehicle charging under electricity market operations. Appl
Energ 2013; 101: 93–102.
14. Milan D. Know all about hybrid vehicles. Delhi, India:
English Press, 2012.
15. US Department of Energy. One million electric vehicles
by 2015: February 2011 status report, www1.eere.energy
.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/1_million_electric_vehicles_rpt
.pdf (2011, accessed 29 January 2012).
Wager et al.
16. Lund H and Kempton W. Integration of renewable
energy into the transport and electricity sectors through
V2G. Energy Policy 2008; 36: 3578–3587.
17. Saarenpää J, Kolehmainen M and Niska H. Geodemo-
graphic analysis and estimation of early plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle adoption. Appl Energ 2013; 107: 456–464.
18. Doucette RT and McCulloch MD. Modeling the pros-
pects of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to reduce CO2
emissions. Appl Energ 2011; 88: 2315–2323.
19. Kelly JC, MacDonald JS and Keoleian GA. Time-depen-
dent plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging based on
national driving patterns and demographics. Appl Energ
2012; 94: 395–405.
20. Katrašnik T. Impact of vehicle propulsion electrification
on well-to-wheel CO2 emissions of a medium duty truck.
Appl Energ 2013; 108: 236–247.
21. Tie SF and Tan CW. A review of energy sources and
energy management system in electric vehicles. Renew
Sustainable Energy Rev 2013; 20: 82–102.
22. Boretti A. Comparison of fuel economies of high effi-
ciency diesel and hydrogen engines powering a compact
car with a flywheel based kinetic energy recovery systems.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010; 35: 8417–8424.
23. Marco J and Vaughan ND. A classical control approach
to the power management of al all-electric hybrid vehicle.
Int J Veh Syst Model Test 2009; 4: 55–78.
24. Formula1.com. Kinetic energy recovery systems (KERS),
www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/
8763.html (2013, accessed 2 September 2013).
25. Boretti AA. Improvements of vehicle fuel economy using
mechanical regenerative braking. Int J Veh Des 2011; 55:
35–48.
26. Midgley WJ and Cebon D. Comparison of regenerative
braking technologies for heavy goods vehicles in urban
environments. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Eng
2012; 226: 957–970.
27. Walsh C and Bingham C. Electric drive vehicle deploy-
ment in the UK, www.cenex.co.uk/LinkClick.aspx?file
ticket=VTnvk0HUiPE%3D&tab (2009, accessed 29 Jan-
uary 2013).
28. Bayar K, Biasini R, Onori S, et al. Modelling and control
of a brake system for an extended range electric vehicle
equipped with axle motors. Int J Veh Des 2012; 58: 399–
426.
29. Zhou Z, Mi C and Zhang G. Integrated control of electro-
mechanical braking and regenerative braking in plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles. Int J Veh Des 2012; 58: 223–239.
30. Fuhs AE. Hybrid vehicles and the future of personal trans-
port. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2009.
31. López-López AJ, Pecharromán RR, Fernández-Carda-
dor A, et al. Assessment of energy-saving techniques in
direct-current-electrified mass transit systems. Transp Res
Part C 2014; 38: 85–100.
32. Lv C, Zhang J, Li Y, et al. Mode-switching-based active
control of a powertrain system with non-linear backlash
and flexibility for an electric vehicle during regenerative
deceleration. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Eng
2015; 229: 1429–1442.
33. Lv C, Zhang J and Li Y. Extended-Kalman-filter-based
regenerative and friction blended braking control for elec-
tric vehicle equipped with axle motor considering damp-
ing and elastic properties of electric powertrain. Veh Syst
Dyn 2014; 52: 1372–1388.
13
34. Zhang J, Kong D, Chen L, et al. Optimization of control
strategy for regenerative braking of an electrified bus
equipped with an anti-lock braking system. Proc IMechE
Part D: J Automobile Eng 2012; 226: 494–506.
35. Peng D, Zhang Y, Yin CL, et al. Combined control of a
regenerative braking and antilock braking system for
hybrid electric vehicles. Int J Automot Technol 2008; 9:
749–757.
36. Kumar CN and Subramanian SC. Cooperative control
of regenerative braking and friction braking for a hybrid
electric vehicle. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Eng
2016; 230: 103–116.
37. Thackeray MM, Wolverton C and Isaacs ED. Electrical
energy storage for transportation - approaching the limits
of, and going beyond, lithium-ion batteries. Energy
Environ Sci 2012; 5: 7854–7863.
38. Manzie C, Watson H and Halgamuge S. Fuel economy
improvements for urban driving: hybrid vs. intelligent
vehicles. Transp Res Part C 2007; 15: 1–16.
39. Wäger G, Bräunl T, Whale J, et al. Enhanced EV and
ICE vehicle energy efficiency through drive cycle synchro-
nisation of deferred auxiliary loads. Int J Electr Hybrid
Veh 2014; 6: 179–194.
40. Faris WF, Rakha HA, Kafafy RI, et al. Vehicle fuel con-
sumption and emission modelling: an in-depth literature
review. Int J Veh Syst Model Test 2011; 6: 318–392.
41. Zhang J, Lu X, Xue J, et al. Regenerative braking system
for series hybrid electric city bus. World Electr Veh J
2008; 2: 128–134.
42. Alvarez R, López A, De la and Torre N. Evaluating the
effect of a driver’s behaviour on the range of a battery
electric vehicle. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Eng
2015; 229: 1379–1391.
43. Walker AM, Lamperty MU and Wilkins S. Enhancing
road vehicle efficiency by regenerative braking. In: Brak-
ing 2002, from the driver to the road, Leeds, UK, July
2002, pp.197–207.
44. Ye M, Bai Z-F and Cao B-G. Energy recovery for battery
electric vehicles. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Eng
2008; 222: 1827–1839.
45. Hayes JG and Davis K. Simplified electric vehicle power-
train model for range and energy consumption based on
EPA coast-down parameters and test validation by
Argonne National Lab data on the Nissan Leaf. In:
Transportation electrification conference and expo (ITEC),
2014, Dearborn, MI, 15–18 June 2014. New York: IEEE.
46. Safoutin M. Modeling methodology, www.virtual-car
.org/wheels/hybrid_road_load_model.html (2009, accessed
15 May 2017).
47. Lv C, Zhang J, Li Y, et al. Mechanism analysis and eva-
luation methodology of regenerative braking contribution
to energy efficiency improvement of electrified vehicles.
Energ Convers Manage 2015; 92: 469–482.
48. Zhang J, Lv C, Gou J, et al. Cooperative control of
regenerative braking and hydraulic braking of an electri-
fied passenger car. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile
Eng 2012; 226: 1289–1302.
49. Mitsubishi-Motors. MiEV specifications, www.mitsub
ishi-motors.com/en/showroom/i-miev/specifications/ (accessed
6 May 2017).
50. Mitsubishi. 2012 Mitsubishi i-MiEV product brief, http://
manitobaev.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/i-Miev-
product-brief.pdf (2012, accessed 14 May 2017)
14 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)

51. International-Regulation. Uniform provisions concerning motorway road dusts. Environ Monit Assess 2016; 188:
the approval of vehicles of categories M, N and O with 369.
regards to braking, Regulation No. 13–11, 2017. 67. Gailis M and Berjoza D. On prediction of motor vehicle
52. Idaho National Labarotory. BEV battery testing results, brake pad wearout. In: 11th international scientific confer-
2014. ence on engineering for rural development (ed Malinovska
53. Yuasa. Industrial lithium-ion batteries LIM50E module, L and Osadcuks V), Latvia, Jelgava, 24–25 May 2012,
2016. pp.349–354. Jelgava: Latvia University of Agriculture.
54. Mitsubishi. How to drive the i for best economy, www.i- 68. Bohoris GA, Desai A and Edge DJ. Modeling rail vehicle
miev411.com/c/how-drive-i-best-economy (2011, 14 May brake pad wearout and replacement. Qual Reliab Eng Int
2017). 1995; 11: 129–137.
55. Yuasa. Drive cycle development and realworld data in 69. Duboka C, Arsenic Z and Todorovic J. Preventive main-
the United States. Working paper No. WLTP-02-17. tenance of units subject to two kinds of wear failure.
GRPE Informal Group on WLTP. Geneva, Switzerland: Yugosl J Oper Res 1996; 6: 85–100.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. 70. Auto-Service-Cost. The complete brake pads cost guide,
56. Delphi. Passenger cars and light duty vehicles. Worldwide https://autoservicecosts.com/brake-pad-replacement-cost/
emissions standards, www.delphi.com/pdf/emissions/Delphi_ (accessed 12 January 2016).
PC.pdf (2010, 18 November 2012).
57. National Instruments Corporation. NI USB-6008/6009
user guide and specifications, 2012. Appendix
58. National Instruments. What is LabVIEW, www.ni.com/
en-us/shop/labview.html (accessed 12 May 2017). Notation
59. United Nations. Addendum 100: Regulation No. 101, AF Projected frontal area of the vehicle [m2]
revision 2. Uniform provisions concerning the approval CD Drag coefficient (depends on the vehicle’s
of passenger cars powered by an internal combustion
shape) [-]
engine only, or powered by a hybrid electric power train
with regard to the measurement of the emission of car-
CRR Tyre rolling resistance coefficient
bon dioxide and fuel consumption and/or the measure- (depends on the specific tyres used) [-]
ment of electric energy consumption and electric range, Econs Energy consumption [Wh]
and of categories M1 and N1 vehicles powered by an Ek Kinetic energy [J]
electric power train only with regard to the measurement Eregen Recovered electrical energy [Wh]
of electric energy consumption and electric range, www. g Physical constant for the gravitational
unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/ force [m s22]
r101r2e.pdf (2005, accessed 2 February 2012). I Electrical current [A]
60. US Environmental Protection Agency. Dynamometer m Vehicle mass [kg]
drive schedules, www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/dynamome- N Number of samplings (for a sample rate of
ter.htm (2013, accessed 26 August 2013).
1 s) [-]
61. Australian Government. Fuel consumption label,
www.environment.gov.au/settlements/transport/fuelguide/
P Power [W]
label.html (2008, accessed 19 November 2012). Paux Auxiliary energy [W]
62. Mitsubishi-Motors. Plug in to the future today with i- Ptractive Traction power demand [W]
MiEV, www.mitsubishi-motors.com.au/vehicles/cars/i- r Rotational inertia compensation factor [-]
miev (accessed 4 June 2012). tinc Time increment [s]
63. Mader T and Bräunl T. Western Australian electric vehi- V Voltage [V]
cle trial 2010–2012, final report. Perth, WA: University of Vi Vehicle velocity at the current time
Western Australia, 2013. increment [m s21]
64. Perricone G, Alemani M, Metinöz I, et al. Towards the Vi-1 Vehicle velocity at the previous time
ranking of airborne particle emissions from car brakes – increment [m s21]
a system approach. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile
hregen RBS electrical recovery efficiency [%]
Eng. Epub ahead of print 24 August 2016. DOI: 10.1177/
0954407016662800.
hdtrain Drive train efficiency [%]
65. Wahlström J and Olofsson U. A field study of airborne u Road gradient (degrees from horizontal)
particle emissions from automotive disc brakes. Proc [°]
IMechE Part D: J Automobile Eng 2015; 229: 747–757. r Density of air [kg m23]
66. Adamiec E, Jarosz-Krzeminska E and Wieszala R. Heavy
metals from non-exhaust vehicle emissions in urban and